CRIA Faces $60 Billion Lawsuit 280
jvillain writes "The Canadian Recording Industry Association faces a lawsuit for 60 billion dollars over willful infringement. These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages. Since these exact same companies are currently in the middle of trying to force the Canadian government to bring in a DMCA for Canada, it will be interesting to see how they try to spin this."
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Irony, defined: The institution responsible for changing copyright law so individuals face millions in fines and years behind jail now has to argue against it to save its own ass.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Your Canadian accent makes it hard for me to understand you. I thought I heard you say "argue against it" instead of "buy off their accusers/judges/jurors."
They deserve what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Every penny won by the artists in this lawsuit will be deserved. I hope the CRIA is found liable for every penny of the $60 billion and is put out of business once and for all.
I also hope similar infringements are found in the United States for both the RIAA and the MPAA. No company that treats their customers as poorly as these companies do deserves to be in business.
Time to cut out the middle man. The internet has opened huge new avenues for distribution; it's time the industry starts getting on board and the artists and content creators start getting more of what they are due.
justification (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, so the majors have been selling CDs for over thirty years with songs they don't own the copyright on?? They've been charging consumers for something they didn't own?
And they wonder why consumers are downloading music...
In retrospect, I don't think we've been pirating music at all over the past decade or so. We're all just small record labels that have been creating (very limited run) compilation CDs and putting the songs on our own 'pending lists'. We fully intend to pay the rights holders, once we can locate them and negotiate rights. Brilliant idea, guys! Thanks!
Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, they are showing their true colors here. They don't care about the artists income, they care about lining their own pockets. You think when they sue consumers for copyright infringement they divvy up that money among the artists whose copyrights were violated? Nope.
They want to collect all the money without paying it out to artists. Not to mention a lot of them aren't paying artists at all, or enough for their digital downloads.
The shoe is on the other foot (Score:5, Insightful)
This time they're the defendent so they're not allowed to mysteriously 'drop' the case. They can be forced to go to trial.
Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's also remember this is Canada, and so far as I'm aware, there has been no infringement case where the value per song has been pegged. While rulings from other jurisdictions may, to one degree or another, inform a ruling, US precedent has no bearing. It's quite feasible that if this were to go to trial, the judge might decide each infringement is only $1000 or $10. Since this particular situation seems restricted to record company actions in Canada, and doesn't happen in the US, it's difficult to see how the complainants can possibly hope to maintain the value per song that they're asking for.
I think CRIA will settle ASAP, but mainly to assure that there is no low-ball price per song is put on the books. Imagine if they had to argue that they should only be paying pennies per song in civil awards. When the Canadian DCMA comes along and they start pursuing file sharers, the precedent is already there that each song is only worth, say, $1 per infraction. It would pretty much wipe out any chance of fear and extortion even for those found guilty of illegal file sharing.
CRIA will never get nailed for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Because here in Canada we have been following the same evolution of Capitalism that the US has adopted: companies (or groups of them) are superior to individuals and are held to a different standard. By all rights they should be forced to pay the billions in damages that they have earned by violating the laws they use as justification to get music downloaders to pay in court. They should get bit in the ass by the same principles they have been applying.
I am far too cynical to believe this will happen though, as I am sure many of you are. The right bribes will be paid to the right Canadian politicians and they will pay a few million in damages and that will be that. I don't trust Harper's government further than I can puke (and I almost do everytime I remember that we elected him. I am ashamed my country could possibly do so), and I expect them to suck up to the big music industry corporations and settle things quietly in their favour.
I sincerely hope I am wrong but I am far too cynical to think it will happen. We have government by corporation these days and they determine the laws and penalties.
wouldn't it be nice.. (Score:2, Insightful)
CRIA is a mini-me of the RIAA and with any luck, they will be sued out of existence before they bring a backward, Draconian & American DMCA to Canada. But I doubt it.
(no offense Americans.. unless you're one of the cronies who created the DMCA)
Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the money does go to the people who own the copyrights.
That's how bad the music industry is--the typical recording contract involves a record company giving a loan to the artist (an "advance") who then finances the recording (including advertising.) The loan is paid back from owed royalties before the artist sees a dime, and when all is said and done, the record companies come out owning the copyrights to the finished product. It's like getting a mortgage, paying on it for 30 years, and at the end of the term, instead of gaining clear title, the bank says, "Thanks for the house!"
To add insult to injury, the record companies do whatever they can to screw the artist out of whatever small percentage they're due (breakage fees for 78RPM vinyl records, for example. No, I'm not kidding.)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Past evidence shows what is likely here. I know this doesn't have anything to do directly with music, but corporations have taken over the government. They insist on having the same rights as a human being, yet when it comes to punishments they know they can get away with murder.
If I had attempted to root kit even a small fraction of the PCs that Sony did, or commit copyright infringement on a much much smaller scale than what this story talks about, I would be ruined. I would lose all my possessions, probably be thrown in jail, unable to contribute to society, and disconnected from social ties. But we all know that these record companies won't be drastically hurt by this. Besides, the executives have already given themselves bonuses and spent the money on blow, or whatever else it is that these people spend millions on.
No one is going to jail over this. The industry will not be hurt. And no lessons will be learned.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
This is shocking and awe inspiring to me. They have paid thousands if not millions to have these laws put into place. And here's the kicker -- it's not casual copying or sharing -- it's massive for-profit piracy. There should be criminal charges filed, prison time served and a massive reorganization of the companies charged.
This isn't irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA, CRIA and the MPAA are effectively no better than pimps. It's good that the law is finally being applied as it should.
Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's a little more likely they'll end up paying a much higher rate as they were willfully infringing for commercial gain - look how much harder the pirates selling fake CDs were hit by the law than those who just downloaded.
Re:They deserve what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope the CRIA is found liable for every penny of the $60 billion and is put out of business once and for all.
This is so naive it very nearly pains me. Not because you think the CRIA might lose - I think of that as optimism. No, rather because you think that $60 billion is a lot of money, and that they will have to pay it. Now, IANAL, but I am pretty sure that once a company declares itself bankrupt and disappears from the face of the Earth, that's it. Gone.
Two weeks later, the Canadian Association for the Recording Industry will pop up, and lo and behold! All the same employees, bar the dead wood they were trying to shift in the first place!
Of course, I sincerely hope I am wrong. I like to think of myself as quietly optimistic, and as such I look to a future where the greedy and the vicious are chastened by society's scorn and live lives of charity and humility. Unfortunately, while that bit of my brain is being quietly optimistic, there's another bit shouting DON'T BE SO STUPID!
I was going to go to the doctor about these voices in my head, but if the RIAA hear about them singing that Miley Cyrus song I'll be done for. No, better off just keeping quiet, like they want...
Re:This isn't irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's what copyright law was intended for.
That's what is ironic about it.
Re:They deserve what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually... the lawsuit names four actual companies. Big companies. Companies that have parent companies who can, in turn, be held accountable.
To be specific, the companies are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada.
Somehow, Capital Records of Canada managed to get missed.
Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Raise your hand if ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
No point in polluting prisons with them. Just make the fines so big they have to declare bankruptcy ... and make sure they can't. Make 'em live in poverty the rest of their lives.
It occurs to me that there was some odd truth told (Score:5, Insightful)
In all the years of whining and complaining about needing stricter laws and harsher punishment and longer copyright terms, they always cited that the artists and their families are not getting paid because of piracy!
Well, I guess they weren't exactly lying were they. It's just that the people they claimed to be responsible for the atrocities against artists were not the file sharing public, but themselves.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Except we have a representative of the queen as governor general with power (unused, but power still) to abolish any law that the queen disagrees with.
Re:We need to get rid of the industry middle men (Score:3, Insightful)
The only choices available are (1) accept one of the various identical contracts, or (2) never be a publicly known musician.
They are criminal organizations, but who can successfully sue them? Plus, if they can write the laws through "campaign contributions" then they are no longer "criminals" even if their activities are highly immoral and exploitive.
So, let me get this right.. (Score:3, Insightful)
..the CRIA were taking people to court for choosing piracy over handling stolen goods? I mean, if you take something and sell it on without paying for it that is called stealing, no?
Well, I'm with a previous poster here: 10 violations per song is ridiculously low given some of the artists on that list. The have the exact figures, so use them. If they cannot produce those numbers that implies guilt anyway, because those same numbers are required to PAY the rights - not having the numbers would demonstrate a lack of intention to ever pay out.
Time to break out the popcorn, I think. This could get entertaining. Any chance of a repeat in the US?
Re:Will be resolved quickly...in CRIA favour (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually DVD's don't have that tax,
Hence why you got o the store and blank DVD's are cheaper than blank CD's.
Re:One unanswered question? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's in Canada. Up here, we don't file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat. We make a phone call. We write a letter. We make a second phone call. We send a fax. We ask to speak to the supervisor. We remain polite the whole time, and try to make the other party understand our point of view so that the dispute can be solved amicably.
Most of us *never* file a lawsuit, and those of us who do only do it because the other party stops returning our phone calls.
In seriousness, they were probably holding out hope (albeit in vain) that the recording industry would see their way to doing the right thing, and to paying the artists their due.
Re:They deserve what they get (Score:1, Insightful)
Either way you're just as much a hypocrite as the other. How does it feel to be on the same rotten shit barge after all?
Re:Irony (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, now, maybe not...consider, if the defendant wins the case, it sets up a precedent that future defendants (citizen Joe, perhaps?) of such motions can use to have their own cases decided more favorably. OTOH, if they lose, then it opens the door for retaliatory suits from others who might now have a brick to throw back at the likes of the RIAA/ CRIA etc. Either way, it's a signal that the endless money train the recording industry has been strong-arming is about to get just a little less profitable and a wee bit riskier for them. Not much of an improvement, but it's a step towards change of SOME sort, at least.
Re:Estoppel in America (and hopefully Canada) (Score:3, Insightful)
If I say "jaywalkers should be put to death", and I jaywalk, would I be executed for it?
Only if your argument manages to convince the court into actually executing someone for it. Otherwise, you can claim that you've changed your mind due to the precedent set by the court when they rejected your argument. Also, that analogy doesn't really work, because I suspect (but don't know for certain) that the principle only applies to civil cases.